Header Ads

FBI lover Peter Strzok says notes made public by defense attorneys for fired Trump aide Michael Flynn have been 'doctored to include inaccurate dates'

 A lawyer for former FBI Special Agent Peter Stzork alleged Monday that some of his client’s notes made public in a case involving former US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn have been doctored.

Strzok’s lawyer, Aitan Goelman, made the shocking accusation in a letter to US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Monday.

He insisted that at least two notes disclosed by Flynn’s defense team as part of the fired Trump aide's criminal prosecution for allegedly lying to Robert Mueller’s special counsel inquiry in 2017 appear to have been 'altered'. 

According to Goelman, the notes include ‘handwritten additions’ – inserted dates – that were not written by the shamed former FBI agent.

‘On at least two occasions, there were handwritten additions, not written by Mr. Strzok, inserting dates, apparently designed to indicate the date or dates on which the notes were written,’ Goelman began. ‘On at least one occasion, the date added is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it actually did.’

A lawyer for former FBI Special Agent Peter Stzork alleged Monday that some of his client’s notes made public in a case involving former US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may have been doctored.
Michael Flynn shown above

A lawyer for former FBI Special Agent Peter Stzork (left) alleged Monday that some of his client’s notes made public in a case involving former US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn (right) may have been doctored.

Accompanied with the letter, Goelman also shared the two pages of notes in question, complete with highlighting, to telegraph the contentious notations.
The second page is shown above

Accompanied with the letter, Goelman also shared the two pages of notes in question, complete with highlighting, to telegraph the contentious notations.

Accompanied with the letter, Goelman also shared the two pages of notes in question, complete with highlighting, to telegraph the contentious notations.

‘I also note that the texts of Mr. Strzok’s that were attached to the defendant’s pleadings include portions that had not previously been released and have nothing to do with [the] Flynn case or, more broadly, with the Department of Justice,’ the letter continued.

Strzok’s attorney also argued documents brought forth by Flynn’s team violate a court order.

Flynn’s attorneys Sidney Powell and Jesse Binnall filed the documents on September 24, claiming that they were evidence of ‘outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and and DOJ—playing games with the life of a national hero’.

Strzok, who was fired from the FBI in 2018, was one of the investigators who questioned Flynn about his discussions with Russian officials in 2017 and believed he lied about them.

The agent drew notoriety for anti-Trump text messages he sent during an extramarital affair with FBI attorney Lisa Page while employed by the bureau.

Strzok was removed from then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team once those messages were discovered.

A report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said Strzok's messages were inappropriate and ‘cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling’ of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.


According to Goelman, the notes include ‘handwritten additions’ – inserted dates – that were not written by the shamed former FBI agent, appearing as if the documents had been ‘altered’

According to Goelman, the notes include ‘handwritten additions’ – inserted dates – that were not written by the shamed former FBI agent, appearing as if the documents had been ‘altered’

The Flynn prosecution was a signature criminal case in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

Flynn was the only person charged in the Mueller investigation who had served in the White House and he agreed months into the investigation to cooperate with the authorities in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence.

He was questioned by the FBI at the White House, just days after Trump's inauguration, about his conversations with the then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. pertaining to sanctions that had just been imposed by the Obama administration for election interference.

The conversation alarmed law enforcement and intelligence officials who were already investigating whether the Trump campaign had coordinated with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor.

They were puzzled by the White House's public insistence that Flynn and the diplomat had not discussed sanctions.

But the Justice Department argued in May that the FBI had insufficient basis to interrogate Flynn about that conversation, which Attorney General William Barr has described as fully appropriate for an incoming national security adviser to have had.

But in August a federal appeals court in Washington declined to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn, permitting a judge to scrutinize the Justice Department's request to dismiss its case against Trump's former national security adviser.

The decision has kept the case - at least temporarily - alive and rebuffed efforts by both Flynn's lawyers and the Justice Department to force the prosecution to be dropped without further inquiry from the judge, who has for months declined to dismiss it.

The ruling came as one of a number of unusual twists and turns over the last year and prompted a separation of powers tussle involving a veteran federal judge and the Trump administration.

The Flynn prosecution was a signature criminal case in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia

The Flynn prosecution was a signature criminal case in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia

Appeals court orders dismissal of Flynn case
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time2:37
Fullscreen
Need Text

The Flynn conflict arose in May when the Justice Department moved to dismiss the prosecution despite Flynn's own guilty plea to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition period.

But US District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who had upbraided Flynn for his behavior at a 2018 court appearance, signaled his skepticism at the government's unusual motion.

He refused to dismiss the case and instead scheduled a hearing and appointed a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's position.

That former judge, John Gleeson, challenged the motives behind the department's dismissal request and called it a 'gross abuse' of prosecutorial power.

Flynn's lawyers sought to bypass Sullivan and obtain an appeals court order that would have required the case's immediate dismissal.

They argued that Sullivan had overstepped his bounds by scrutinizing a dismissal request that both sides, the defense and the Justice Department, were in agreement about and that the case was effectively moot once prosecutors decided to abandon it.

At issue before the court was whether Sullivan could be forced to grant the Justice Department's dismissal request without even holding a hearing into the basis for the motion.

'We have no trouble answering that question in the negative,' the court wrote in an unsigned opinion for the eight judges in the majority.

The judges also rejected defense efforts to have the case reassigned to a different judge.

2 comments:

  1. Anybody actually beLIEve what this sneering piece of GARBAGE says? Then again you shouldnt beLIEve Epstein GUILTY Trumpy that he was gonna ARREST HILLARY like he said either. According to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Neither Barr nor Durham are even INVESTIGATING!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBJQjqROJw

    ReplyDelete
  2. What Goelman is really saying, is that the prosecutors altered the documents. Anything flied by Flynn's legal team would have been copied to the prosecutors, who did not allege the documents, which they had given to Flynn's team, had been altered. If Strzok didn't alter the documents, and the prosecution did, would it be to save Obama and Biden?

    ReplyDelete